User talk:Chatterboxer

Nomination of ICall for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ICall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines

Please explain your edits on Talk:Southwest Airlines. I don't want to get in an edit war with you. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 16:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Compudude. I don't have any horse in the race on the SWA article, it just seems that the language being used is marketing language, not factual language. Saying "low-cost airline" is really quite subjective. That is how SWA markets themselves and sometimes it is true that their fares are lower, but there are plenty of times that they are not... so I guess my only disagreement there is that the word "low-cost" is going to be different from person to person. A homeless guy won't think it's low-cost. If a ticket from LUV to AUS is 100 dollars on SWA but 99 on Continental then the wikipedia entry is now wrong. If you really want to use the word "low cost" then I would suggest something like "Southwest Airlines is a commercial airline that advertises low-cost fares" or something like that.

That may be so, but you didn't explain why you think they aren't American-based. They clearly are! Most of their flights are within the USA, and they are based in Dallas, Texas, USA. And finally, they are also well known as being a solely B737 operator (until the recent Airtran merger) so I have no idea why you removed that info either. —Compdude¹²³ 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Compudude. Sorry I did not explain. I do not disagree that they are an American corporation. My issue with most of the things we seem to be disagreeing on is with the grammar/word usage. SWA is not an American airline. American indicates posession (even though people use it all the time they are using it wrong). Southwest is an airline headquartered in Dallas, TX. That in and of itself indicates that it is headquartered in the USA. If you want to be more detailed, you could say Dallas, TX, United States of America. SWA is a commercial airline. SWA is a corporation. SWA is headquartered in Dallas, TX. SWA is not a posession of America. Regarding the 737 operator. I do not disagree with you that it may be true, but there is no source or reference so it appears to just be the opinion of the author. If you want to put it back then perhaps do so with a "citation needed"? We have the same goal I think which is to have a factually correct article about SWA. Chatterboxer (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's true. SWA is an airline based in the United states, but it's not an American airline. Yes, saying "American" does indicate possession which is not true. Nonetheless, it's still a common grammatical mistake (just as common a mistake as saying "Me and Bob" instead of "Bob and I") and it really shows how we stupid Americans don't even know how to use correct grammar for our own language! (Blame our teachers :D) And as for the 737 info, yes it is true, but keep in mind that per WP:LEAD statements made in the lead of an article don't need to be sourced as long as similar statements in other places in the article are sourced. Anyway, I am glad we were able to clear this up, and I will correct the lead accordingly. —Compdude¹²³ 18:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Icall logo 200.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Icall logo 200.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Osano for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Osano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osano until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello Chatterboxer. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Chatterboxer. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Chatterboxer|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Praxidicae (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of ICall for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ICall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICall (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)